pdshfandomcom-20200215-history
User talk:Crimsoncrusader
Welcome Crimsoncrusader to Public Domain Super Heroes. Thanks for your excellent sidekick contributions. I hope you enjoy your time here and keep those contributions coming.--Madmikeyd 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Uncle Sam Uncle Sam does indeed appear in the American Spirit sketch. So do The Shield and Captain America (shadowed), who are neither Public Domain nor Project Superpowers characters. But ok, I'll go with it.--Madmikeyd 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Mini-series Catagories My initial intent was for the "Project Superpowers" category to be all-inclusive of the PS universe. As the line grows, characters may get regulated to different titles (similar to Marvel having "X-Men characters" and "Spider-Man characters"), so I can see the argument for both ways. I'm inclined to leave it.--Madmikeyd 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Welcome tool Hi, Crimsoncrusader! I saw the message that you left on User talk:Wikia, and I'm a little confused. Did you think that User:Wikia vandalized something? -- Danny (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks I just wanted to thank you for double checking my work here. I'll try to be more mindful of the links and whatnot. I love this site and the idea behind it, and people like you make great. I, too, am looking at using some of these characters, and this site serves as an excellent reference. Again, thanks. --Raydog 02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC) What of this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darna Is she good for the taking in all countries except the Philippines? Hello to a fellow editor Hello, Crimson Crusader! I started on a project like this, but expanded it to all comics rather than just PD. I was hoping you'd come take a look and perhaps contribute if you like what you see. The site is at: http://popfiction.wetpaint.com Now, looking up Darna, I don't think she is PD, as Phillipine law allows for a copyright term of 50 years following the death of the author, and US law extends a term of 95 years for foreign works even if that work was not properly protected under US law. So, Darna would become PD in 2042 for the earliest works. However, as a clear derivation from Wonder Woman, it's unlikely the original author's claim to her would stand up in a US court...This is the maddening thing about PD, the details. For instance, Uncle Sam and The Ray, et al. from Quality ARE PD. DC claims they own them, but the original works were never copyright renewed, so the characters are not owned. The confusion comes in about Plastic Man and Blackhawk, who did have some works renewed but not all, mostly early 1950's material. Also, Plas and Blackhawk are trademarked by DC, which is a different animal. Tarzan is PD as well, but trademarked by ERB Inc., people have used him, been sued, and there's no definitive answer as to wether he's in the clear. A number of characters people beleive are copright protected, well, aren't. Sub-Mariner, isn't, as the first use was Motion Pictures Funnies Weekly, which is PD. Marvel Comics #1 was not renewed for copyright, which puts Namor, The Human Torch, The Angel and anyone else in that book initially, into PD. Note that Torch was renewed by Carl Burgos, but wether he has an existing estate is a question. Oh, yes, and the Nedor heroes were renewed and are under copyright, question is, to whom, and who exactly still cares? Might be the Pine family, might be CBS or AG Bertelsman or nobody. So, far, Dynamite and Project Superpowers has escaped any complications. Hope to see you at Pop Fiction! http://popfiction.wetpaint.com - Fantasium 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC) * Just out of curiosity, do you have any proof to back up those claims (especially the ones pertaining to Timely/Marvel and Nedor characters)? --Strannik01 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Moon Girl MAD Magazine is all that remains of E.C., and Moon Girl hasn't seen a new publication in about 60 years. Admittedly, I've never read an explicit statement that she is in the public domain, but I believe it to be a pretty safe bet. http://www.reason.com/news/show/36164.html --AdamRavencroft 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Copyright Determination Although I like this page, a lot! I think there's some confusion here about how copyright status and ownership works. There's no such thing as a copyrighted "character" in and of itself. Copyright, in the US, comes from protection of WORKS, or in most of these cases, stories. The way the law works for stories published before 1964 is, that the pubisher would have to register the work, then renew that registration 28 years later. If they don't, the characters in that work become public domain as they appear in THAT work only! Take Moon Girl...She was first published in either Happy Houlihans #7 or Moon Girl #1, both out in 1947 and both published by EC Comics. I looked up copyright renewals for both 1974 and 1975 in the Catalog of Copyright Entries as found here: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html Since it does not appear to have been renewed, and was published by a corporation (EC), it can fairly safely be assumed that both books are in public domain. Therefore, Moon Girl is a "public domain character". However, let's say Max Gaines didn't renew number #1 of Moon Girl, but did renew number 2. You cannot use any elements unique to number 2, but you can use Moon girl herself as number 2 is a derivitive work of number 1. Searching public domain is not easy. This gets confusing. There is also a controversy regarding the Quality Characters. (Doll Man, Uncle Sam, The Ray, etc.) becuase they were bought in the mid 1950's by DC Comics. All well and good for DC, however, when the renewals came up, they did not renew the works, making those characters public domain. Don Markstein at Toonopedia beleives DC owns these characters, but Bill Black at AC thinks they do not. Go figure. the Nedor characters (Black Terror, Fighting Yank and Doc Strange, etc.) WERE renewed, but no one has challenged Dynamite, ABC, I mage or anyone else who's used them, so either the ownership died with the demise of Pine Comics, or the Pines family still owns them or has sold them, and no owner has noticed the use. To early to tell. Most of those characters were actually created by Ben Sangor Studio, and bought by Pines Comics, so its possible Sangor owns them as well. Happy Hunting! Pop by my wiki http://popfiction.wetpaint.com/ ---Fantasium 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Images I see that several images you've uploaded have come from www.internationalhero.co.uk Same cropping, same image size, same yellowing, even same file names. That's my site, and you didn't ask. Yes, the characters might be public domain, but I put a lot of work into tracking down information and images for my site, and for you to come in and help yourself so you can build up another site, without even having the good grace to ask if it was okay, is incredibly rude. Please stop doing it. Not all your image additions have come from my site, so you are clearly capable of finding images without simply purloining them from other people. 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I have apologized and now gained permission to use images from the US Golden Age sections of www.internationalhero.co.uk. - Crimsoncrusader Note on Quality Characters Noticed you're working in Quality characters recently. Great! One thing I didn'tmake clear before, Plastic Man and Blackhawk ARE public domain. Yes, DC claims them, and may have "bought" them in 1956, but, the copyrights on most early works (issues) by Quality, including Military Comics and Police Comics were allowed to lapse. Also, The Spirit by Eisner should be public domain. This gets confusing...Quality published The Spirit in comics, and Everett Arnold arranged the comic strip (really a free comic) to be published in newspapers. Neither the syndicate nor Arnold nor Eisner ever renewed the copyright as far as I can tell, so Spirit should be PD. Eisner makes the claim (probably true) that he and Arnold had a reversion deal that returned ownership rights to him after the Spirit stoped appearing in Quality. However, even with such an agreement, the lack of renewal makes that deal moot. -Fantasium, popfiction.wetpaint.com 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC) * When the issue was covered at Comic Book Urban Legends Revealed, a commenter who called himself "Paul" stated at that he went to the Library of Congress and checked. According to his account, DC did renew copyright for Blackhawks and Plastic Man. As for the Spirit, I would air on the side of caution and assume that Eisner's copyright claim was legitimate. I think we can safely assume that most Quality Comics characters are in public domain because AC Comics and others reprinted the Golden Age stories they originally appeared in with nary a peep from DC Comics, but nobody tried to reprint GA Spirit stories without permission (I.W. Publishing's outright illegal reprints notwithstanding). --Strannik01 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) :*Strannik01 - I looked this up personally, using the Catalog of Copyright Renewals for both 1941 and 1942. only a few issues of Plastic Man and Blackhawk stories were renewed, and those were for about 1954 to 1956, just following Arnold's death, when his widow was handling Quality. You can find this information here: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html ::Police Comics #1, the first appearance of Plas, WAS NOT renewed, meaning that while certain stories are protected, Plastic Man as a character is not. If Plastic Man was renewed and somehow I missed it, then Phantom Lady, The Human Bomb and The Mouthpeice, all debuting in Police #1, are owned by DC, which is not the case. The reason no one reprints Plastic Man or Blackhawk is that they ARE trademarked by DC. The trademark itself is questionable, as no one in the general public associates those characters exclusively with DC. ::As for The Spirit and Eisner's claim, The Spirit Section would have had to have been renewed as part of the newspapers it appeared in for copyright as a work to be validated, and it is almost certain that did not happen. While I have great respect for Eisner, he does not own the character that I can tell. 07:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Alan Moore's Favorite Did you know that Herbie Popnecker is Alan Moore's favorite superhero? Yes, We should add this to his page in the notes section. It is a fun fact. - Crimsoncrusader Category: Dynamite Entertainment Do you know how to correct the spelling of the Dynamite Entertainment category? I know that it's (at least) linked from Dracula and S. Holmes. Thanks for the help. Guidelines Have someone on this wiki written some kind of guideline for what to include on this wiki? For example, do you consider these additions in line with the "vision" for this wiki: *I’ve added the category the lost girls, complete with its three protagonists. The reason for this is primarily because it later on made Allan Moore write another shared universe – the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen – and thus has some kind of connection to the super-heroic world. *I’ve also added the category the House of Mouse. It is, most definitely, not a super-heroic world, but it is full of characters in the public domain. Some of these characters – like Hercules – have already been added in other categories, but there might be other public domain characters that might be of interest. --Ifrippe 12:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the response, I totally agree with it. --Ifrippe 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Collaboration of The Week On the front page there is a header called "Collaboration of The Week." Is the intention to make each character entry look more akin to how they look on sites like Wikipedia? If so, is there are guideline for how they should look. If there isn’t a pre-made guideline, is it okay if I give Boy King a Wikipedia:ish look, that you could comment on? --Ifrippe 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Merging characters Don’t you think it would be better (as in easier to find characters when the wiki grows) if we merge characters that are just a different version on an established character, and instead have the deviant information under for each relevant publisher? The characters that I primarily think of are Flame, Frankenstein, Phantom Lady, Samson and Uncle Sam. --Ifrippe 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Only problem with that is some of the details of the characters get change with different versions. For example The Flame(1) could control fire and got his powers from magic. The Flame (2) was a scientist and did not control fire. I know that when dealing with PD characters you have to be specific. --Rivalmoon 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Main page Hi! I was just looking at the wiki, and I was wondering why there's that big blank space at the top of the main page. Did you mean to do that? -- Danny (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I think I fixed it. Sometimes these things seem to have a mind of their own...--Madmikeyd 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Thank You These are my first few pages of any type. I just wanted to thank you for your help in making them look better. I have a bit of trouble with the infoboxes. --Rivalmoon 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC) No problem - Crimsoncrusader Questionable Status My concern is that we add characters like the Shield, the Web, the Fly or whoever and someone uses them saying they were on our site so they must be public domain, then gets sued. I know the majority of MLJ books are PD (including early Archie stuff), but I don't know the ins and outs of what characters are protected to what degrees. I trust your judgement, however (probably more than mine). If you reasonably believe lower-profile characters to be PD I'll go with it. As far as I know those characters are NOT public domain and were trademarked in a deal with DC which did the Impact comics with them and are relaunching them now. --Rivalmoon 04:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC) --With regards to not only the MLJ Characters, but characters in general , here are a few rules of thumb: 1.) Trademarking does NOT grant copyright protection. Trademarking a PD character only protects it to the degree of its "distinctive likeness" for marketing purposes. For example, if I publish Santa Claus Comics #1, that does not mean you cannot use the character of Santa, it means you may not create a title with the same name and you may not "pass off" your comic as my company's work. Trademark only lasts as long as as one uses a character for product identity, but does not run out. Trademarks are rather specific. "Superman" is a trademark of DC Comics, "Man with Red Cape", probably is not. 2.) Copyright only exists where a creator or rightsholder has met the legal requirements for such protection. Today, that's easy, create a fixed work, such as a story or drawing, you own it. Back before the 1970's, there were renewals, publishing notices, etc. Either a company or creator maintained these, or they didn't. It really doesn't matter who bought what, or who's using what character in which book, specific characters are protected or they aren't. What I've found using records from Guttenberg Project (Catalog of Copyright Renewals) or the US Copyright Office or other databases is, that DC was meticulous about renewal, Marvel is tough to pin down, Facwett is hit and miss with some Captain Marvel stuff protected, some not, Gleason is in PD, MLJ is PD on early work, Nedor is protected but may not exist as a rightsholder, and other companies just may not care about 1940's work, like Avon. Quality was initally protected, but most of it was allowed to lapse, despite the DC "purchase". 3.) While lapsed works are PD, including all characters and plot details, works based on these are not. While Mary Shelly's novel Frankenstein is PD , the Universal Studios Frankstein film, including what everyone "knows" Frankenstein's Monster looks like, is protected. The latter are "derivative works" and are protected as a unique expression of the creator. Also, this means that if I want to use Lev Gleason's Daredevil as seen in in a comic printed by him, that's ok, but I may not use anything unique to Dynamite's Project Superpowers, unless I use it as a "transformative work", such as in an encyclopeida or as humor or in a review. 4.) In Trademark, there's such as thing as "genericide", meaning that once unique tradenames, used by the general public as a regular word or term for a product , is no longer a a legitimate trademark. Aluminum Foil , Kerosene and Asprin are examples of former trademarks, Google and Kleenex are dangerously close. "Genericide" might exist in relation to Copyright as well in some form, as "stock characters" or "stock plots" have no protection. This means that I may use a "butler" or "evil clown" in my story, but not specifically "Alfred Pennyworth" or "The Joker". DC snuffed out a few supers in the 1940's as violations of the Superman Copyright, as they were super-strong , flying crimefighters with capes. Today, the general public, when thinking about what a "superhero" is, think of super-strong, flying guys in capes. So, are most supers "violations" of a "unique expression", or are they generic "stock characters"? Most likely, the latter, in my layman's opinion. 17:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)FantasiumPrime http://popfiction.wetpaint.com Hey there. I was wondering how you found out that Kismet is now in the public domain. I was wondering if there's any particular source - I'd be very interested to hear! Please message me on my wall - thanks : ) Hey Crimsoncrusader - thanks for getting back to me. I'd be interested in hearing more about your ambition in the comicbook world. Do you have an email address I could contact you on? why not open up a section where people can add ongoing interp of these characters. Leave the original bio that you have where people can't change it, but then open it up for interp. Hey CC - I understand about the email address. I essentially wanted to talk to you about a new venture of bringing some of these characters back into the foreground. Given your experience, it would be good to have your input, possibly even your help. If it's something that might interest you, let me know. Avenger Hello, The Avenger has been one of favortite PD characters since my teenage years. I contacted AC publisher Bill Black (?) and asked about the Avenger being a PD character and that I was writing a project about the character and would there be any problem doing this since I didnt know where to turn or who to ask. Mr. Black came back and told me that the Avenger character wasnt in public domain and I couldnt use the character. He wouldnt respond to my follow up questions as to why I couldnt use the character. I abandoned the project. Can anyone tell why I couldnt use the original?? I couldnt find anything to indicate that the AC publisher had rights to the character. Please let me know. I really enjoy your sight and all the work that has been put into it. Vince Vince, there is no reason you cannot use the Magazine Enterprise Avenger to my knowledge. This because all of his Golden Age comics fell into the public domain when the company went failed to renew the comics in their 28th year which meant the characters fell into the public domain. Here http://www.geocities.com/cash_gorman/copyright1.html and Here http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html are research to support this. Also you can download Avenger's comics at Golden Age Comic Downloads. I hope this will help you and good luck with your project. - Crimsoncrusader Cameos or Full Appearances? Hi Crimson. You seem to be the go-to person for questions so...Regarding characters at multiple companies, if a hero has made a brief cameo in, say, a DC book, is that enough reason to add a DC Characters category to their page? For instance, The Clock, Commando Yank, and Bozo the Iron Man all had cameos/references in Starman. They haven't officially appeared in any new DC stories though as far as I know. Thoughts? Rajah1 02:29, September 5, 2009 (UTC) Stories Is it okay to put one paragraph story summaries of a character's Golden Age appearances in their bios? Is that too much info? : 20:30, September 11, 2009 (UTC) If it was a significant story such as how they met their sidekick or how they got their powers I could see a paragraph being OK, but for less significant stories maybe a sentence or two would suffice. - Crimsoncrusader FAQ MUCH better than mine, thank you for putting that up. I was just sick of a blank FAQ and filled it in as best I could. ```` No problem, thanks for filling in the rest of the FAQ. You did a good job. - Crimsoncrusader THANX!! :Hey, thanks very much for adding the categories and infoboxes, CC. Have followed your advice and added the extra information. Ciao, SimonKirby 01:52, September 15, 2009 (UTC) No problem SimonKirby, Madmikeyd and I were happy to help. - Crimsoncrusader Open Source Is it possible for anyone to add an Open Source Character? Cause I have a couples of characters that I wouldn't mind opening up for public use. If I can, let me know. User:SoundersSecretKeeper Thanks Thanks for the answer. I have to do a little more work on them but I think I can get them on the sight some time in the near future. User:SoundersSecretKeeper Sounds Good. - Crimsoncrusader Imprints and sub-categories I received this message from Ifrippe. You're a better "catagorizer," so what's your opinion? I defer to your judgement.--Madmikeyd 19:29, September 22, 2009 (UTC) Original Message: To make the main characters page less cluttered, is it okay if I remove all imprints (provided that they have I link it the companies main page)? For example, is it okay to remove the imprints Tem and Helnit, since they are already linked under Holyoke? Here is how I see it. We should include all of them because they categorize different things. For example, Project Superpowers is one series and Black Terror is another monthly series while Dynamite is a publisher category. Tem and Helnit are imprint categories. It is like if you made a Wolverine page, he would fit in the Marvel, mutant, Avenger, and X-Men categories. You would not exclude one of these categories from his page. - Crimsoncrusader